Friday, April 25, 2014

For
a long time now I have contained my rage which has been provoked by what is
happening in India today, and it concerns the future of India as a nation and as a country.

Indians
are offering a man the coveted and powerful chair of the country’s Prime
Minister under whose watch a state-sponsored pogrom resulted in the murder of
several thousand innocent citizens. At the same time, they are branding an
honest citizen activist a ‘fugitive’ who abandoned a state’s chief ministerial
post simply because the establishment did not allow him to pass a tough
anti-corruption law.

The
one accused of ‘mass murder’ is a hero, worthy of being crowned a king. The man
of principles, an anti-corruption crusader, is a laughing stock. The sitting Oxbridge-educated
Prime Minister is a dummy head, a man stoically blind to the corrupt in his own
ranks, clinging to his post at the cost of his dwindling reputation.

Is
this the state of the nation that nationalist Indian leaders such as Jawaharlal
Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Abul Kalam Azad had envisaged when they laid down the
foundations of a free India in 1947?

While
the nation is presently going through its most decisive elections in its 70
year old democratic history, what is at stake is the very idea of India: the idea that fueled the struggle for India’s Independence, culminating in the establishment of a free,
democratic, socialist and secular Republic of India.

This
idea of India was based on the principles of equality and inclusiveness,
on the ideals of secularism and equal respect to all religions and creeds. It
was, what Mohammad Iqbal once called, a poetic idea, sophisticated beyond its
time and place.

As
Indian historian Ramchandra Guha has noted in his book, The Makers of Modern India, Indian democracy is unique in the sense
that India became a nation and a democracy at the same time,
and five different types of revolutions are going on in India simultaneously. What’s been happening in India since Independence is what took Europe a couple of centuries and the United States nearly 200 years to achieve. There, it happened in
stages. Here, it is happening all at once, and hence, the seeming chaos of India, which often makes us despondent and hopeless
about India’s future.

The
poetic idea of India had emerged a winner after defeating a couple of other competing
ideas—ideas of a communist state (class-based politics), of a federation of
states based on religion (Iqbal and Jinnah’s religious and cultural identity-based
politics), and of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ propagated by right wing Hindu groups such
as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Hindu Mahasabha.

If
Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wins the parliamentary elections
this year, it is the last idea, the idea of India being a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ envisioned by far right
Hindu nationalists that will come to prevail. This once-defeated idea of India will be revived with a Naipaulian revenge.

The Rise of Narendra Modi

In
this battle to rule India, according to the opinion polls and ground
reports, Narendra Modi, BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, seems to have an
edge over all other contenders. Why is he is so popular, both inside and
outside India among the Hindus?

A
lot has been written about this charismatic Hindu rightwing leader from Gujarat—about his humble rise from his tea-selling days to his political
stranglehold over Gujarat as a Chief Minister, his powers of oratory, his
no-nonsense decision-making, his sex appeal, and so on. The list is countless
if you hear to Modi’s acolytes and fan boys.

How
did a mediocre man like Modi become the darling of the Indian masses (or that
is what we are being led to believe at this point of time)? Is it because
contemporary Indians love mediocrity?

Interestingly,
Modi is not foreign-educated or highly educated like most of India’s Prime Ministers have been. He is a son of the
same soil which gave birth to Mahatma Gandhi, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the
founding father of Pakistan. It is quite possible that millions of Indians
love him because of his image of a self-made man who can bring change and
economic development and ride roughshod over minority rights (which hardly matters
in their consciousness). The last point is important because whenever anything
is done to favour the Muslims or to ameliorate their condition, BJP brands it
as Muslim appeasement, and not secularism. Modi’s hardliner, ‘popular’ image
has been created with the help of the media, by spending millions of rupees (Rs.
5,000 crores, according to Aam Aadmi Party) on advertisements and public
relations.

BJP’s secularism

I
was raised as a secular kid in India, and for a long time, I could not understand how a
political party like BJP was allowed to exist in India. BJP is the political offshoot of the RSS, the
Hindu right wing outfit whose ideologies had inspired Nathuram Godse to kill
Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. Godse was a member of the RSS.

In
that sense, BJP’s inherent ideology should be seen as against the Constitution
of India. How could the Election Commission of India look the other way and not
ban the party? I could not understand this and later on I put it to the strong
traditions of India’s political pluralism.

Meanwhile,
very methodically, whatever remained of the Muslim leadership was wiped out of India. Muslim leaders were discouraged (and even discredited)
by all political parties. Muslims were left to be led by Non-Muslim leaders who
had to strike a balance between their Hindu supporters and their Muslim voters.
This led to the persistent and pernicious growth of the vote bank politics. Both
the Indian National Congress (INC) and the BJP stand accused of perpetuating this
malpractice. Something similar has happened on the lines of caste too, but a
generation of successful caste-based leaders has emerged. This has largely
benefitted the low-caste Hindus.

As
far as the meaningful participation of minorities in Indian politics is
concerned, the answer does not lie in stoking the fires of communal politics
but of deepening secularism in the political space.

How is this possible?

India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was
an atheist. In the Nehruvian model of secularism, scientific temper was meant
to play a great role, which was further predicated on the spread of mass literacy
and education. When the state’s effort to educate the Indian masses failed to a
large extent, right wing forces established their Saraswati Shishu Mandirs throughout India (As on 2010, about 17,000 such schools existed across
India). Many liberal private schools were also
established (I was fortunate enough to study in one such private school in India, where we were taught co-existence, and respect for other faiths. Our school uniform was saffron, symbolising sacrifice).

At
the same time, as the state’s television stations that preached religious
tolerance and social unity became irrelevant, heavily Hinduised television programmes
created a generation of Indians whose spiritual ethos find an echo in Modi’s
image of a Hindu Samrat. For example,
it is not surprising that Smriti Irani, a popular TV actress who played the
role of a Hindu housewife in an extremely popular TV serial (Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi) and the
role of Sita (in Zee TV’s Ramayan) is now a senior leader of the right-wing BJP.

BJP
has been very active in making Indians believe in their idea of India. Slowly but surely they have chipped away at the
idea of Indian secularism with a sustained effort. They believe in overt
expression of religion on politics and now Modi talks about ‘Indianness’ before
anything else. Whenever he is questioned about secularism, he invokes
‘Indianness’. This is nothing but hollow demagoguery.

Even
this could be fine but there is a hitch and that is the Indian Constitution. If
BJP can take out the word ‘secular’ from the Indian Constitution, it can do
whatever it wants. No one will ask any questions on secularism then.

Meanwhile,
Narendra Modi’s electoral promise is growth and economic progress. One wonders
how this will be possible when the incumbent Indian Prime Minister, an
economist by training and a former World Bank official, has overseen the
faltering of the once-strong Indian economy (See
this Forbes story: Even Narendra Modi May Not Be Able To Help The Indian
Economy). Moreover, BJP’s economic policies are no different from Congress’
(See
this Forbes story: BJP Will Ban FDI In Retail But Offers Other Goodies To
Business). They are the votaries of the same neoliberal policies that have
led to India’s development, and inter alia the problems of inflation, price rise, and crony
capitalism. Revealingly, if only economic development is the BJP’s election
mantra, why has the party put rebuilding of the RamTemple at the controversial site in Ayodhya on its manifesto?
Won’t it alienate the Muslims of India?

But
how do you explain all this to the 800 million Indians who might see this
complex situation in very simple terms: Congress and its allies have ruled for
ten years. It is time to give the other party a chance.

This
proves only one thing. That democracy is still in its infancy in India. If you don’t believe me, just go to any
constituency. In most places, you will see electoral candidates, often from
rich and political families, touring the area like a price visiting the hoi
polloi. If politics is a business in India, what does it make Indian democracy? A
marketplace?

My
fear is that because of India’s size, India will remain ungovernable (Indian population being
three times the population of United States). Confusion of multiparty democracy, communalism
and casteism, poverty and illiteracy make the situation even worse. I don’t
think even a Lee Kwan Yew could set India right. Only time will show us the true path. Until
then, we will keep making mistakes.

My
fear is that minority politics will survive in India as long as minorities maintain their unique
identity. Once they start merging their identities with the majority community,
politics of caste and religion will melt away. “Poverty makes people create
differences,” India’s former President APJ Abdul Kalam said in a recent interview.
“Sometimes poverty drives these differences. But economic prosperity and higher
literacy will make us forget our differences. Economic prosperity is fine but
will Muslims accept it at the cost of their religious identity?

As
far as those who believe in Gandhi’s and Nehru’s idea of a secular India, they should not lose hope. They should do
whatever they can to strengthen their idea of India, just as the right wing works tirelessly to
strengthen their idea of India.

It
should not surprise anyone if Modi wins the elections. If a George Bush could
win the Presidential elections in the United States for two terms, why can’t a Modi win in India? America has survived Bush. India is a 5,000 year old civilization. She will survive
Modi.

Clearly,
a Hindu nationalist party’s interests lie in keeping the nation divided. Thankfully,
a good sign for India’s future is the twin rise of the BJP and the Aam Aadmi Party like a DNA’s double helix. One will neutralize the other.
That’s where my hope lies. And like Tagore said, in the end, India does not belong to Hindus or Muslims. India belongs to humanity and when the dust of history
settles, and when we are rid of our vanity, India will be claimed by humanity.